The Court of Appeal has rejected three appeals brought by Alan Gray in connected proceedings involving receiver Simon Coyle and Bank of Ireland entities. The appeals concerned discovery and notices of trial; the court did not decide the underlying claims about the receiver’s appointment or the loan security.
In Coyle’s proceedings, Gray challenged a High Court order of 15 November 2017 refusing his application for further and better discovery. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had not acted prematurely or unfairly. It said Gray had engaged with the supplemental discovery affidavit at the hearing and had not identified additional documents that were relevant and necessary to resolve the case.
Gray had sought copies of 79 emails listed in Coyle’s supplemental affidavit. The Court of Appeal noted that Gray ultimately said copies would meet his needs, and the High Court directed that they be made available for collection. The judgment explained that discovery required documents to be identified and listed; it did not itself entitle Gray to copies, though he could inspect them and request copies.
The other two appeals concerned High Court orders of 22 November 2017 refusing Gray’s applications to set aside notices of trial in both actions. The notices had been served after the High Court directed that the connected cases be heard together, with a trial date of 18 January 2018. The Court of Appeal held that the High Court judge had discretion to bring forward the hearing of Gray’s applications and was not required to defer them without a good reason for his unavailability.
Gray did not attend the 22 November hearing. The appeal court found that he had not given a satisfactory explanation for his absence or shown that the refusal to set aside the notices caused significant prejudice. It rejected his argument that the hearing in his absence breached fair procedures.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed all three appeals. The underlying proceedings remained for trial; the appeals did not determine Gray’s claims for damages or his challenge to Coyle’s appointment as receiver.